It explains why we're warm blooded (keep warm).
It explains why we have fur (keep warm).
Plus there were a lot of reptiles about during the day and the night would have given us an advantage.
"us" lol.. team mammal FTW!
From my reading of the situation (having been converted), it seems that being a 'just so' explanation (not so evidence based, just conjecture), and one put forward by a woman in the 1970s, it was met with really over the top hostility for what I think is an interesting hypothesis.
You get into how our fingers prune up for better grip in the water, our diving reflex, and how at-home some spearfishers and free divers are in the ocean, not to mention the multitude of fishing villages that predate written history by who knows how long... it's a very convenient explanation -- which academics are right to be skeptical of -- but I don't think it deserves being cast as bunk.
Somewhat tangential, but here's my favorite video of humans being at home in the ocean, "Living off the Land in Hawaii", with badass laying on the ocean floor waiting for a meal @3:45 https://youtu.be/jJXEepvG6Hc?t=225
Awfully skeptical of that claim. While there is more friction area potentially, skin is very easy to damage when "pruned". You can't use any significant force in this condition making normal skin with higher force capability much more useful in water.
"In the latest study, participants picked up wet or dry objects including marbles of different sizes with normal hands or with fingers wrinkled after soaking in warm water for 30 minutes. The subjects were faster at picking up wet marbles with wrinkled fingers than with dry ones, but wrinkles made no difference for moving dry objects. The results are published today in Biology Letters"
What are the criteria you consider when you say bird vision is better than primate vision? Fundamentally, different evolutionary pressures will lead to distinct optimizations in different lineages - this, it is difficult to suggest that one extant lineage is better than another.
As an example, consider the cephalopod. The different organization of the cephalopod eye does indeed seem better. But it’s possible that 360-degree vision was important to evolving cephalopods, so the anatomical organization of the eye adapted to facilitate this (i.e., through avoiding the presence of blind spots)
The cephalopod eye is better in almost every respect to the vertebrate eye. Not only isn't it wired in backwards, it can regrow if damaged. If there is a designer God, his second attempt was certainly the cephalopod eye.
Colour vision is not much help under low light conditions which is the reason our distant shrew-like ancestors lost their colour vision in the first place.
You seem to have authority, clearly, but doesn't your statement very precisely support my claim that we are now living in a society that dis-favor the color-blind? Our ancestors lost their ability to distinguish colors but now (all of a sudden) color seems very important. So we have in fact started, very recently, to select for non-color blindness. No?